Three-Act Structure

[jst5150]

Writer Stephen J. Cannell offers this lecture on the three-act story structure. Yes, he's a screenwriter, but I'm told this applies fundamentally to a great swath of writing (save, maybe, grocery lists) Good stuff, here (http://www.writerswrite.com/screenwriting/lecture4.htm).

He offers more tips to be a better writer, here (http://www.writerswrite.com/screenwriting/lecture5.htm).

[James D. Macdonald]

The three-act sturcture:

Act One: Get your hero up a tree.
Act Two: Throw rocks at him.
Act Three: Get him out of the tree.

[Optimus]

James points out how Vonnegut and Bill Martell (among others) have boiled down the three act structure. I think Vonnegut's was something along the lines of "find a hole, throw your protagonist down the hole, have him try to crawl out." It was a critique of the "baroqueness" of Campell's monomyth.

3 Act structure has been used in novels/novellas before, but it's a structure more often used in drama than novels. It's the natural fit for drama, though I doubt Aristotle would've put it so plainly.

Novels, generally, don't tend to follow the three-act structure (of course some do, but generally novels don't, especially the more "literary" novels. Granted, whether or not they do is sometimes a subjective opinion of an outsider, too. What one may see as the Act 2 turning point/reversal in a 3-Act, may be seen by someone else as the end of the 2-act in a 4 act structure. *shrug*). It'd be good to use in novels if you want a quicker, faster paced story with less reversals, or for novellas, but your general novel adheres more to a 4 act (or more) structure than a 3 act. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just an inherent difference often found when comparing dramaturgical and novelistic writing.

Cannell makes some good points and has written some okay TV shows, but if I were to take a screenwriting guru's advice and apply it to novels, I'd go with something from Robert McKee. His advice tends to focus more on story and character development, than structure, which is invaluable no matter what form you write in.

Thanks for the links.

[SusanR]

Thank you for sharing that website. I've added it to my favorites to read in moe depth. Posting such websites is a real help to newbies like me, and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

SusanR

[brokenfingers]

I don't see how you can say novels don't follow a three act structure.

Beginning, Middle, End.

???????

[DamaNegra]

I agree with Brokenfingers. All stories have a beginning, middle and end, thus the 3-act structure. It might be a good idea for organization, although I must confess I haven't read the site. Will look at it when I have more time ;)

[Optimus]

I don't see how you can say novels don't follow a three act structure.

Beginning, Middle, End.

???????
Well, it's a little too simplistic to reduce the complexities of story structure into the oft misunderstood Aristotelian "beginning, middle, and end" structure. A thorough reading of Poetics will point out that "acts" are not simply (or at all) just the "beginning, middle, and end." I think far too many people misunderstand what an act really is.

Beginning, middle, and end are probably better thought of as the "parts" of a story, rather than its "acts." An "act," in the traditional sense, is a principle component/division of a theatrical performance (the end of each act signifying the ending of a particular portion of the story, thus the need for a physical scene change), not necessarily the parts of prose fiction. Then again, in today's vernacular that's probably just splitting hairs, but I'm an arbitrary traditionalist.

It's all in how you conceptualize/divide the story."Acts" don't necessarily refer to "beginning, middle, and end," rather, they generally refer to how the different parts of a story are divided and compartmentalized.

I also said that novels don't "generally" follow the model, though there are many that do. And, I also said that it's all in how one subjectively looks at the story structure. What I see as "3 acts" may be "4 acts" or "7 acts" to someone else.

Indeed, Gustav Freytag divides most stories, both novelistic and dramaturgical, into a structure based on the "5 act structure" of stage plays:

Acts:
1) Exposition (including inciting incident)
2) Rising action
3) Climax
4) Falling action
5) Denouement

I, personally, don't subscribe to his 5 act conceptualization, as I don't believe that it adequately captures the true nuance of dramaturgy. But, that's just my opinion.

To illustrate the differences in story structures as they relate to "acts," I surfed the web to try to find some pics. I found some pretty good diagrams, so I'll try to post them in this post.

Anyway...

Some conceptualize short stories (and short films) as having two-act structure (rising action to the climax = Act 1, falling action through denouement = Act 2).
http://z.about.com/d/teenwriting/1/0/T/shortstory.gif


Traditionally, the three-act structure has been built around a minimum number of "reversals" and a minimum amount of "falling action." Therefore, this story structure is most suited for dramaturgical pursuits since dramaturgy relies on a specific formulation of rising action/falling action (and since, traditionally, the term "act" to signify structural story breaks comes from stage plays, anyway, and not novelistic prose).

Typicall, a dramaturgical work will be 3 acts:

1) Introduction of protagonist and goals ("exposition") and inciting incident.
2) Rising action, reversal, more rising action ("raising the stakes")
3) climax and falling action (denouement)

Eh...something like that.

In novelistic prose, however, the author can put in as many reversals (thus, as many couplets of rising and falling action) and as many subplots as he/she wants, therefore the novel can have many more "acts" than the traditional 3 of dramaturgical writing.

http://z.about.com/d/teenwriting/1/0/Y/novel.gif

Many novelists prefer the 3-Act structure nowadays because the stories they write (the types of stories popular today) fit better within the 3-act paradigm.

You can see how the act structures of novelistic and dramaturgical works clash when, for instance, a non-3-act novel is adapted to a screenplay.

Take Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, for instance. If you've read the books and then seen the movies, you'll notice that entire chunks of the novels (subplots and "acts") have been cut from the novels in order to fit it into the three-act model, for purposes involving both the time constraints and the structural demands of drama.

I hope this clears up what I mean when referring to acts in relation to story structures.

[DamaNegra]

Thank you professor :)

No, seriously, I liked the diagrams. And I now see your point, which is true. But all stories do have beginning, middle and end, and the 'acts' can be made to fit into those three categories for organization purposes. Using the word 'act' might be unaccurate though, perhaps we just need another term :)

[Jamesaritchie]

Beginning, middle, end, or three act play, when done right, they're the same thing. Scxreenplay, stage drama, novel, short story, all use them routinely.

Many books, and bazillions of articles have been written on teh subject, and teh three act structure is taught in creative writing all over heck and gone.

They only clash in bad lietrary novels.

I have written screenplays, and I've never had to cut anything to make it fit the three act structure. Cut's are usually for time. Filming LOTR without cutting all those chunks would have mad a movie that would have been, seriously, thirty hours long.

Anything that can be done on stage can be done in a novel or short story, and anyting that can be done in a novel or short story can be done on stage. The structure is as similar as you want to make it, and putting too much credence into exactly what constitutes an "act" just gets you in trouble. An "act" is whatever the playwright says it is, and can be done for thousands of reasons, and in thousands of ways.

[DamaNegra]

Filming LOTR without cutting all those chunks would have mad a movie that would have been, seriously, thirty hours long.

Given the quality of Peter Jackson's movies, I would have happily watched the thirty hours just to see the whole book on screen :)

[Optimus]

Dama,

I tend to get kinda wordy and exhaustive about minutia sometimes. So, I apologize for the unnecessary compendium.

As far as the "beg, mid, end = 3 acts" side of the argument goes, I'll ask you to think about this:

When does the beginning end and the middle begin? What information is the beginning supposed to contain? How much of the middle of the story is truly "the middle?" When does the end begin and how do we know we're in it?

I have written screenplays, and I've never had to cut anything to make it fit the three act structure.
I'll assume you mean that you adapted novels to screenplay form, and that you're not referring to writing specs. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense. So, perhaps in your adaptations, you didn't need to cut because the story structure of the novel fit in well with a dramaturgical structure. Or, perhaps the story was very visual by its nature and simply translated to script form easily because of that. Perchance did any of your scripts sell? It'd be interesting to get the perspective of a sold screenwriter on this.
Filming LOTR without cutting all those chunks would have mad a movie that would have been, seriously, thirty hours long.
Indeed. And, they were probably too long anyway. But, besides just for time constraints, LOTR and HP had entire "acts" cut out of them (chapters involving subplots which deviated from the journey of the protagonist(s)). Had some of these "acts" not been cut, as you said, the movies would've lasted all week.

That's another thing to keep in mind. True 3 act structure is oftentimes predicated on not deviating from the protagonist's journey throughout the story, and keeping his/her/their POV as the storytelling thru-line.
anyting that can be done in a novel or short story can be done on stage..
On stage, perhaps, but not on screen, at least not well. Introspection can't be filmed.
putting too much credence into exactly what constitutes an "act" just gets you in trouble.
Agreed. But not putting enough into understanding certain aspects of storytelling (structure, acts, format, character development, etc.) and the differences between the various approaches gets you into even more trouble.

Educating oneself as fully as possible in the area of one's chosen pursuit (writing, in this case) is what separates the dilettantes, hobbyists, lost-every-script-contest-ever-entered trainwrecks, and the self-published-but-still-can't-legitimately-sell people from successful writers.

A person who is serious about the craft of writing will learn what an "act" actually is, what the differences are between novel and romance writing, and will know what "dramaturgy" is. A person doomed for failure will see these things and say, "Huh?" and then not care.

I think a much more useful discussion of story structure might be, rather than quibbling about what an act is and when it begins/ends, to go into detail about how to develop each act and what themes/elements should be focussed on when developing each act.

Perhaps someone more qualified than I am should start that thread. I imagine, though, that that info is hidden within some of Uncle Jim's wonderful threads already.

[DamaNegra]

When does the beginning end and the middle begin? What information is the beginning supposed to contain? How much of the middle of the story is truly "the middle?" When does the end begin and how do we know we're in it?

Interesting question. However, it depends on the story. In mine, I can clearly point out where the beginning, middle and end are. I just don't know a general rule to point them out in all stories, but it would be interesting for research.

[PeeDee]

You know how you read through someone's message and then formulate a reply that you'll give once you've finished reading everyone?

Every time I did that, I read one-further, and there was Optimus saying everything and (a great deal) more. So. Er. Gold star. Right. Agreement with him.

Will go be profound in someone else's thread... :)

[aghast]

I think there is a difference between 3-act and beginning-middle-end. 3-act structure is very specific. I think optimus did a good job explaining story arcs but I don't think its the same as 3-act structure though. I think most stories follow that kind of arc, but 3-act is more specific. for example, in King Kong theres clearly a 3-act structure. 1 - in New York (exposition, setting up the stage). 2 - Skull Island (the meat). 3 - back in New York (the climax and finale). Or take the sound of music: 1. Maria going from being a nun to be a governess. 2 - Maria and the von Trapp famly. 3 - Escaping the Nazis. Sure, these are movies so the 3-act structure is more obvious. But take a book say a Christmas Carole and you'll see the clear 3-act structure (Scrooge in every day world, Scrooge with the ghosts, Scrooge back in every day world becomes a changed man). Of course not all stories are like that -- literary fiction has a way of meshing everything together or changing the structure completely (even though they usually still have beginning, middle and end).

[Mistook]

I'd say I do tend to group my chapters into even larger units, and that there are five of these units to my story.